OzPolitikhttps://ozpolitik.wordpress.com
news and opinion on Australian politics, seriouslyMon, 22 Jan 2018 12:19:39 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngOzPolitikhttps://ozpolitik.wordpress.com
Respecthttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Ozpolitik/~3/OC4JZew4kXQ/
https://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/respect/#commentsWed, 03 Nov 2010 23:22:12 +0000http://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/?p=1457It is all too easy to be critical of police officers and the manner in which they use the power that is bestowed upon them. So when you come across such a fine example of policing and discretion as carried out by Constable David Jay, it should receive the respect and admiration it deserves.

(Some will find the following offensive. I’m more interested in the interaction between the officer and the member/s of the community for whom the evening could have had a very different conclusion)

What makes the difference between a police officer like David Jay and one who would issue an infringement for socks or make an arrest for singing? Is it temperament, education or training? What would you say you, David?

“I think Australians would like the idea of the process of saying, ‘If you’re going to try and jump the queue you go to the back of the queue and wait in a refugee camp and wait your turn to come to Australia.”

Last night as I was reflecting on the election campaign I decided to have another flick through Tony Abbott’s Battlelines. It seemed appropriate since there is real chance of Abbott being the next prime minister. He is a man whose interest in public life was “first stirred as a child reading the Ladybird books”. A man who understands “that you have to engage people before you can give them orders”. While reading, a few things stood out. Of course this is just my interpretation of Abbott and what he has written, but if it is correct, it seems to show that Abbott is following in his ideological father’s footsteps. Something, it could be imagined he would continue to do in government. What a suprise.

I soon discovered that it was harder to take intellectual short cuts or to get away with debating tricks if your case had to stand up in print rather than just to sound plausible in melee of voices.

Personally every time he opens his mouth(to speak) I feel like saying ‘that’s bullshit.’ It normally is. How anyone could believe him, let alone vote for him, is beyond me.

There seems to be some similarity between the coalition’s current slogan and Hanson’s:

“Hanson attacked Howard for not standing up, as she put it, for the ‘real Australia’.”

And the coalition:

Stand up for Australia. Stand up for real action.

Or: Stand up for [real] Australia. We’ll make a difference with our real action plan. STOP THE BOATS

If Abbott is the ideological love child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop then perhaps Pauline Hanson could be his ideological sister.

Asylum seekers become the “law and order” issue for the federal election. Even though both parties have engaged in getting tough on law and order in this campaign, this is usually left for state governments and oppositions to outbid each other on toughness.

Abbott is comfortable using asylum seekers as a political football. He offers two reasons in Battlelines:

There’s little doubt that some Liberal voters were uneasy about the government’s positions on these issues [asylum seekers and climate change]. Those that were going to change their votes on them, though, almost certainly would have done so prior to the 2007 poll.

And:

Labor ended up backing the government’s treatment of unauthorised arrivals and special laws to make it harder for illegal entrants to stay.

The Liberals have been light on policy detail. As well as “standing up” for something they will “do the right thing” and “end the waste, pay back debt, stop new taxes, stop the boats”. The reason for lack of detail may be this:

…the coalition did not have extensive, exhaustively detailed policies going into the 1996 election. […] By 1996, under Howard, the party’s policy orientation had been tempered by pragmatism and was certainly expressed in more genial terms.

Unfinished post. Have to attend a wedding. The groom wants to stop the boats. Can’t wait…….

]]>https://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/down-the-rabbit-hole/feed/0ileumhttps://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/down-the-rabbit-hole/Does Australia need a shandy man?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Ozpolitik/~3/YP1axlNSci8/
https://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/does-australia-need-a-shandy-man/#commentsThu, 19 Aug 2010 19:51:50 +0000http://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/?p=1415I’m rarely one to criticize a bloke for what he drinks. But on the eve before I head to the embassy to place my pre-ballot vote, and as I read over the the SMH article by Phillip Coorey and Peter Hartcher, I wonder how much each candidate’s choice of beverage reflects their leadership, personalities, and more importantly, policies.

Sadly, neither Toohey’s Old or a shandy do little to excite me about the future of Australia under either leader. Perhaps it was because I spent last week sampling dozens of micro-brews in Seattle. But with election campaign beverage choices made most deliberately, I wonder what each leader is trying to signal to Australia voters.

(Photo: Andrew Meares, Glen McCurtayne, from SMH)

Gillard – showing her support for NSW by choosing a NSW label of the people? Abbott – showing his affinity for women by choosing half-beer half-soft drink? I say tongue-in-cheek.

If this is the case, Gillard’s schooner of Toohey’s is unlikely to deflect much of the ill will NSW voters feel towards the state Labor party. Likewise, if Abbott thinks the average women is a shandy drinker, he should probably think again. Given his love of gaffs, a shandy (gaff) may well be an unconscious choice of the heart, but I wonder whether an appeal to tee-totaling Christian lobbies will view him half as evil if his beer is really half lemonade or ginger ale.

Now I don’t know what they put in Toohey’s Old, and voters may also detect an unknown murkiness to what policies Gillard plans to implement (I would have gone a Guinness personally). Yet a shandy’s contents are quite clear, yet like its translucent character, it is mostly carbonated fizz and sugar, with little depth, no substance. It might taste sweet but those empty calories will do little more than leave you a little hyperactive. Clearly the hardest thing in Tony’s hand is the glass itself.

Which leads me to the question, does Australia need a shandy man?

Despite a wheel feeling off the Labor wagon, the government has managed to shepherd Australia through a global financial crisis, for which it deserves more credit for than the previous Howard government deserved for bringing “prosperity” to Australia amongst a global economic boom.

Given Abbott’s direction – or lack their of, his bitterly negative campaign (the “4 nays”) that says little more than he is in principle opposed to whatever Gillard is proposing, it is hard to find any positive contribution he will bring to Australia’s economy and society. Debt and boats may sound like great things to be stopped on the surface. Yet Abbott has failed to prove he has the capacity to achieve these goals. I can only conclude as I head to the polling booth, that Australia needs anything but a Shandy Man.

Three leaders in Asia Pacific that came to power amid an overwhelming yearning for change throughout each nation. After years (8, USA; 11, Australia; practically since post WWII, Japan) of conservative government stewardship, voters in all three countries desired not necessarily economic change, but for a shift of the nations’ social and moral rudders. Headlining issues included the war in Iraq, climate change, and in Japan, US naval bases in Okinawa.

Yet a few years in, all three have been decimated in public opinion polls, with Obama the only one to remain in office. Hatoyama and Rudd, with low factional support bases, were ultimately axed by their own parties after the largest force keeping them at the helm of their parties – opinion polls – deserted them.

2010 being an election year in both Japan and Australia, the opposition have been quick to attack the economic credentials of the current governments and the alleged “financial mismanagement” that has led to budget deficits and a supposed “endangering” of all three countries’ economic stability.

It is startling to realise just how quick we have been to forget the momentous task that these governments were all faced with during the global financial crisis. It is true that all three leaders failed in pushing through some of their election platform policies. Yet once clear of the woods of economic crisis, it is disconcerting how quickly the tide of popular sentiment has changed for these leaders.

New Japanese PM Kan led his party to a battering in recent upper house elections. In Australia, PM Julia Gillard leads her party to an election with underdog status, if polls are to be believed. This despite the opposition being headed by an otherwise thoroughly unelectable Tony Abbott. Even as a non-partisan writer, I can say it has a mix of both tragedy and farce to see Abbott present an image of stability and consistency, even if he has achieved this through a policy platform of unrelenting criticism rather than logically designed public policy fundamentals.

The key question of course is, does the Labor government “deserve” to be returned to power despite their “sins”? I have tried taking a piece of paper and constructing an argument in favour of a coalition government. So far, the only point I had in their favour was communications/broadband policy. Yet since the opposition’s recent announcement on their broadband policy, this has been well and truly scratched, leaving me again with a blank page of “pros” for a coalition government.

Over the last 2-3 decades, successive Australian governments (both Labor and coalition) have made Australians better off by pushing through progressive reforms and making Australia more open, tolerant, influential, and affluent. Voters need to check both parties against such a scorecard before they vote this month to see if whoever takes office will continue this tradition of progressive reforms, or if they hope to wind the country back to a bygone era.

The government has been praised ( “… what your government did was exactly right.“) for the action it took that minimised the impact of the GFC and kept Australia out of recession. These measures and other programs which have and would continue to deliver infrastructure and services, the Liberals call waste and they say must end. Then, as they stop investing in Australia and its people, they will pay back the debt. The debt is only 6% of GDP. If you are concerned about that then you are as clueless as Abbott. As Peter Martin asks, Debt free. Got any other ideas to stifle growth?

even though the BER is one of the largest national public work programs ever funded by the Commonwealth, the Taskforce has only received complaints from 2.7% of schools involved in the BER program.

So it should now be clear that the “waste” is just more of Tony Abbott’s bullshit. Read more at the political sword.

Other “waste” (infrastructure/services) that the coalition wants to end include: Paid Parental Leave (until his scheme is implemented one presumes), Trade Training Centres in schools, the NBN (why would anyone vote for this?), the Digital Education Revolution, additional funding for the State Infrastructure Fund and discontinue the Australian Human Rights Framework.

]]>https://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/end-the-waste/feed/1ileumhttps://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/end-the-waste/Getting the good Gillard back on trackhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Ozpolitik/~3/f53cFyrdR5Q/
https://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/getting-the-good-gillard-back-on-track/#commentsThu, 05 Aug 2010 14:55:05 +0000http://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/?p=1383When Julia Gillard took the reigns of the ALP and the government hurtling towards an election, she neatly encapsulated her motive and her objective as getting a good government, that has lost its way, back on track.

But just where had the government lost its way? If Kevin Rudd’s opinion polls were a symptom or a barometer of national sentiment, what had caused the Rudd government to go walkabout? In ‘a few notes for Julia‘, I boldly suggested a few areas where the new government could re-claim its mandate for leadership. Since coming to power, what has the Gillard government been doing to rectify this ‘loss of direction’ in the lead up to the election?

Gillard’s comments have obfuscated some of the great gains that the Rudd government has brought to Australian society and economy: for example, she appears less willing to demonstrate how the Rudd government “steered” Australia through the global financial crisis. Yet on the other hand, many of the policies that caused Rudd government “lose its way”, Gillard has allowed to trail on.

Carbon

The Rudd government failed to get a bill up on carbon, and failed to price it. It was a dramatic retreat from pre-election stance, and from the much publicised Garnaut Review and the report tabled by ANU Professor Ross Garnaut.

Staring up at the diving board, the government saw the opposition in the political hot tub, and decided it was far less risky to join the Coalition of the warming spa than to climb the tower alone and take a dive into the colder, less familiar, and far more dangerous pool below.

>> The government needs to commit to a timetable for environmental reform, including carbon and renewable energy. It needs to go back to the Garnaut Report and steer Australia to become a world leader in green business, rather than a laggard.

The Net Filter

Nothing has sickened me more, writing from overseas, to watch the developments of the net filter, championed blindly by Senator Alston Conroy. With his filter and its blacklisted blacklist, Conroy stands as a beacon of hope for any Labor politicians wanting to show voters they are more conservative than the Liberal Party. Since Conroy took the communications portfolio, forums have discussed whether he one of the worst enemies of high-speed low-cost internet since Senator Alston famously stated that broadband was only for pornography and gambling. The filter has attracted due criticism from international observers concerned about what the move means for freedom of expression and civil rights, and also for the cost of doing business in Australia.

>> Yet with a change of leader brought a chance to kill this inane policy. Regrettably this was not taken. This policy has dragged on, or possibly swept under the electoral rug in a bid that the bad press may go away. However, Gillard has been handed with another option: removing Senator Conroy, now billed as “Australia’s dumbest politician“,from his portfolio and killing the policy along with his cabinet post. Furthermore, now that the Coalition has motioned that it will not support the filter, it is dangerous for the government to continue with it, even if it is likely to receive damaging political “flip-flop” flak if it pulls out now.

Porn at customs

The next “is this really Australia?” moment, was the rise of the “are you carrying porn?” on the customs incoming passenger cardissue. It was a clear sign that rather than Australia becoming more progressive under Labor, the government’s various arms were moving to uphold ultra conservative values. And on the back of the net filter, it was a signal of the state wanting a more pervasive role into people’s private lives. Was thing again a misdirected attempt to crack down on child pornography? CNET’s coverage showed all too well how some of the world perceived the move.

Others will be relieved that the customs officials declared that they will apply “tact and discretion.” Which, presumably would mean no loud exclamations including the words “Cor!” “Blimey!” and “Sheila!”

Perhaps I should leave my iPhone on the plane or flush my stash in the toilet before I pass through customs?

Resources SuperTax

When you wake up and hear of a proposed new 40% tax, it makes you rub your eyes, scratch your head, and wonder if someone slipped something in your drink the night before. After you see that all vital organs and orifices are in tact, only then do you realise the words you are hearing are real. Sharing the mineral wealth of Australia with Australian citizens is a noble gesture, but it is a lofty goal and in this case, its implementation – a huge new tax, had disaster written across it from the beginning.

>> Fortunately, Gillard acted swiftly on this one, and should be a reminder to her that when she acts swiftly and with conviction, she can effect policy change and rise above the three-phrase-mantra of Tony Abbott.

]]>https://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/getting-the-good-gillard-back-on-track/feed/3Adhttps://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/getting-the-good-gillard-back-on-track/Is Andrew Bolt implicated in this dishonesty?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Ozpolitik/~3/4cN-MGb6Ml0/
https://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/is-andrew-bolt-implicated-in-this-dishonesty/#commentsWed, 04 Aug 2010 10:29:25 +0000http://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/?p=1369Andrew Bolt has a habit of claiming he has been defamed, then hinting (or threatening?) at legal action, but he has a funny way of going about it if he genuinely plans to proceed. Yesterday he decided to get worked up about the @andrewbolt twitter account that has been around since February 2009 (and interviewed by Jason Wilson). He had a sooky sooky wah wah and wrote:

It shouldn’t need saying, but I do not have a Twitter account and the fake one seems to be the work of people whose employer will be very embarrassed to find its staff once more engaging in deceitful slurs. A little warning there. A tearful sorry afterwards will be both too late and insincere, especially from people with their record of sliming.

[…]

I’ve been given names, and at some stage may use them. Parody is perfectly fine, but identity theft is low.

The poor, precious petal. Bolt is no stranger to slime or the dog-whistle. He has made untrue and insulting smears and statements about both individuals and cultures, and has had a successful defamation claim made out against him. What was very amusing about this whinge was that just a few hours earlier he had written “It could be cheaper for all if we just hardened up.” Bolt should have taken notice of his own advice, but it was quite inappropriate for him to aim it primarily at someone who has been a victim of sexual harassment at their place of work.

A few hours later he posted Taking offence. Rather than Tony Abbott apologise for saying ” Are you suggesting to me that when it comes to Julia, no doesn’t mean no? Bolt suggests it should be Kathleen Swinbourne apologising for saying “Mr Abbott’s comments trivialise the seriousness of violence against women and he should apologise”. Memo from Andrew Bolt to the womens: harden the fuck up, you don’t know my pain. The man clearly knows no shame.

There is also a certain madness to his method, and not just on this occasion. In this instance, why would Bolt publicise @andrewbolt? His blog is apparently popular and received two million page impressions last November. Any defamation action runs the risk of attracting more publicity to the defamatory material and any action to censor online material results in the Streisand effect, giving that material more publicity (“the Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it”).

In this case Bolt made his readers who might have been otherwise ignorant, aware of @andrewbolt. He gave much merriment to the twitterverse, 800 new followers to @andrewbolt and helped to spawn many new fake Andrew Bolt accounts – so now you can #followthebolts – all 45 of them. It was also reported on news.com by the afternoon.

An element of a successful defamation action is the publication (communication)of the said defamatory material. A person may be liable for defamation if they publish the material, regardless of whether they are the author of the material or not. Anyone who republishes that material is a new publisher of it and gives rise to a fresh cause of action. So here are a few examples, where if it were possible, it could be said that Andrew Bolt defames himself.

My favourite example of this is where Bolt publishes what appears to be a private conversation that he must consider defames him, then turns around and asks his readers: should I sue?

When Hore-Lacy tries to convince even my own sister-in-law that I’m really South African, apparently implying that I’m as racist as the South African stereotype, should I take his lead and sue, or just brush it off as the normal hurly-burly in a society that should treasure debate?

Andrew Bolt once again displays that he is a “victim” who squawks loudly against the “victim industry” and a man who is never sorry but demands personal apologies.

As Andrew Bolt would like it, let’s give the last word to him:

When asked by news.com.au why he did not have an official Twitter account, Bolt said: “How much more do you want from me?

“I think the blog is extremely time consuming and very successful. And I don’t really need to tell people what I had for breakfast.”